ZONDI AJ Constitution cannot properly be upheld or enhanced. Particularly in a country where so few have the means to enforce their rights through the courts, it is essential that on those occasions when the legal process does establish that an infringement of an entrenched right has occurred, it be effectively vindicated. The courts have a particular responsibility in this regard and are obliged to ‗forge new tools‘ and shape innovative remedies, if needs be, to achieve this goal.‖54 (Footnote omitted.) [68] These are not the only considerations that should be taken into account. Other considerations, too, are relevant to determining what is just and equitable. Where possible, relief should not only be granted to the applicants before a court, but to all those similarly situated to the applicants. Ordinarily, an order of invalidity should have no effect on cases which have been finalised prior to the date of the order of invalidity. But in situations where retrospectivity is to be applied, the court must consider the potential disruption and uncertainty that such an order could occasion. [69] The High Court, after declaring section 18 constitutionally invalid, suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of 18 months in order to allow Parliament to remedy the constitutional defect. It directed that pending the enactment of remedial legislation by Parliament, or the expiry of a period of 18 months whichever is the sooner, section 18(f) is to be read as though the following words ―and all other sexual offences, whether in terms of the common law or statute‖ appear after the words ―the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007, respectively‖. [70] Although the applicants seek confirmation of the declaration of invalidity, they do not support the consequential orders made by the High Court. The first respondent does not oppose the application for confirmation as well as the consequential orders. The Minister supports the application for confirmation of the declaration of invalidity and the consequential orders of the High Court. 54 Fose v Minister of Safety and Security [1997] ZACC 6; 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC); 1997 (7) BCLR 851 (CC) at para 69. 29